A Comparison of Microwave Ablation and Cryoablation for the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing microwave ablation (MWA) and cryoablation for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: The systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies published in English from January 2006 to February 2022 that assessed adults with primary RCC who received MWA or cryoablation were included. Study arms from RCTs, comparative observational, and single-arm studies were eligible. The outcomes included local tumor recurrence (LTR), overall survival, disease-free survival, overall/major complications, procedure/ablation time, 1- to 3-month primary technique efficacy, and technical success. Single-arm meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model. Sensitivity analyses excluding low-quality studies assessed using the MINORs scale were performed. Univariable and multivariable examined the effects of prognostic factors. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups and mean tumor size for MWA and cryoablation were 2.74 and 2.69 cm. Single-arm meta-analyses were similar for LTR and secondary outcomes between cryoablation and MWA. Ablation time was significantly shorter with MWA than with cryoablation (meta-regression weighted mean difference 24.55 minutes, 95% confidence interval -31.71, -17.38, P < .0001). One-year LTR was significantly lower with MWA than cryoablation (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.93, P = .04). There were no significant differences for other outcomes. CONCLUSION: MWA provides significantly improved 1-year LTR and ablation time compared with cryoablation for patients with RCC. Other outcomes appeared similar or favorable for MWA; however, results were not statistically significant. MWA of primary RCC is as safe and effective as cryoablation, which should be confirmed with future comparative studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".